Contributed by: Vanja Mikulic and Irena Milatovic, Montenegro National VAW Monitors

Violence, with its different forms, is a part of female everyday life, and is not adequately regulated with laws, and the ways of hiding it are very effective, even from the side of endangered women which makes difficulties for violence prevention and sanctioning the abusers. The society does not have an adequate treatment for this frequent social occurrence, and coordination and cooperation among institutions responsible for solving this problem, is still not at an adequate level.

According to its mission, activists of SOS hotline for women and children victims of violence Podgorica, with its partners’ organizations SOS hotlines from Bar and Berane, and with the support from USAID/MAP/ORT, started an initiative “Monitoring of enforcement of the article 220 of the Criminal Law of the Republic of Montenegro”, which treats domestic violence as a criminal act. Data are related with monitoring of enforcement of this article within Courts and Security Centers in 9 Montenegrin municipalities (Podgorica, Kolasin, Danilovgrad, Bar, Ulcinj, Budva, Berane, Rozaje and Plav), as well as with the analysis of the level of beneficiaries’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction of obtained services in institutions mentioned above.

This initiative is directed toward institutions that have crucial importance in improving and enforcing legislation and procedures which regulate violence against women, which are the Ministry of Interior and Judiciary.

Initiative’s goals are: establishment of positive legislation, increased level of enforcement of this article in the practice, more effective sanctioning of abuser which will lead to improvement of the treatment of endangered persons in institutions. One more important goal of this initiative is better awareness of citizens about the work of institutions.

Within this initiative, we have analyzed data obtained from the Security Centers, their departments, and Courts, interviews with SOS hotlines’ clients, as well as statements of representatives from the institutions mentioned before.

Analyzing data obtained from Security Centers in municipalities mentioned above for the period 1. 01. 2004 – 31. 12. 2004, we can conclude there are: 

• 328 citizens’ charges in total for 9 Security Centers; 
• 89 persons (27.13%) who are imprisoned on the basis of charge; 
• 106 persons (32.31%) who have received warning from the public officials; 
• 146 processed criminal charges (44.51%); 
• 101 charges on the evaluation at the Prosecutor’s Office (30.79%); 
• 260 female victims (79.27%) (Spouses abused from their husbands, mothers abused from their sons, sisters abused from their brothers, daughters abused from their fathers, daughters-in-law abused from their fathers-in law…);
• 37 male victims (11.28%) which usually refers to parents whose children are delinquents or users of psychoactive substances (PAS);
• 31 children who were victims of violence (9.45%); 
• 314 violators who were males (95.73%); 
• 12 violators who are users of narcotic substances (3.66%); 
• Interesting information which shows that almost 20% out of total number of denounced violators were using alcohol in the moment of committing violence in family, which confirms our statement that alcohol can not be the cause of the violence, but just can strengthen already present aggression.

During the first six months of the monitoring process, available data from municipal security centers implied on huge differences in applied types of interventions. While, for example, in Podgorica’s Security Center, dominant intervention was giving the warnings by officials, in Berane’s Security Center processed criminal charges were mostly used.

During the second half of the year, there were visible positive changes in Podgorica’s Security Center, so measure of warning was reduced from 45.7% to 19.5%, and as they say, with mandatory Prosecutor’s consultations.

Court in Podgorica 

• Number of citizens’ criminal charges in Security Centers is 232; 85 are at the Prosecutor’s evaluation; and number of processed cases by Security Center is 80; 
• Number of indictments is 38; 
• Number of verdicts is 12, out of which 9 are paroles, 2 are fines, and 1 is acquittal.

Out of total number of processed cases in 2004 in Podgorica’s Court, there were just 15% of verdicts.

Court in Berane

• Number of citizens’ criminal charges in Security Centers is 59; number of processed cases by Security Center is 45, and there were 23 verdicts.
• Type of sentences: 2 acquittal, 14 paroles, 7 fines, and 1 sentence of imprisonment.

Out of total number of processed cases in 2004 in Berane’s Court, there were 51% of verdicts.

Court in Bar

• Number of citizens’ criminal charges in Security Centers is 37; number of processed cases by Security Center is 5, out of which 3 are indictments. 
• There were no verdicts.

Out of total number of processed cases in 2004 in Bar’s Court, there were no verdicts.

Conclusion: 

• The relation between the number of citizens’ criminal charges, the number of processed cases and the number of sentences is in disharmony, and imply on having drastic decreasing tendency. Out of 100% of citizens’ criminal charges, 33.31% ended up as “warnings” to the violators by the police officers; 44.51% are processed, out of which only 23.97% get court’s epilog, which clearly implies on absence of positive practice in prosecution and judiciary.
• The forms of recorded violence are alarming and the most frequent form of violence is both psychical and physical while the victims are mostly women.
• The fact that out of 143 processed cases during 2004 in Courts in Podgorica, Berane and Bar, only 35 are completed, implies on slow and ineffective court’s procedure even if there is a good legal basis.

Representatives from mentioned institutions stated in interviews, beside their personal attitudes and convictions, some other “practical” reasons for inadequate enforcement of current law. The most frequent reasons are: 

• Lack of court practice 
• Lack of quality law comments 
• Lack of official and formally legal, good and precise formulated categories of violence in family
• Testifies, more precisely the possibility for victims or their relatives to ask for disqualification of testify 
• Personal dilemmas which have extremely strong influence on types of sentences, such as:
  • Is the violator bluffing or not, while he is threatening?
  • Is fine impoverishing the family or serves as an “educational” measure?
  • Is woman going to be “punished” for fake testify if she withdraws the criminal charge?
  • Can insults and blows be considered as violence in family?

EVALUATION OF CLIENTS’ SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION

Women who had used services in institutions had a possibility to evaluate satisfaction of institutional work through questionnaires (500 women have been chosen by pure chance method) in which they could describe their own experiences as: a) negative; b) average; c) positive. Beside the poll, women were interviewed in Legal Office of SOS hotline.

• Polled women who had used police services, stated that they have experienced negative experience in 38.7% cases, average experience in 35.5%, and positive experience in 25.8% cases. 
• Women who had used judiciary services had negative experiences in 17.1% cases, average in 63.4% cases, and positive in 19.5% cases. 
• Beneficiaries of the Center for Social Work Services stated negative experience in 36.4% cases, average in 54.5% cases, and positive experience in only 9.1% cases.

During interviewing clients of SOS hotlines who have used services of Security Centers, Judiciary, and Center for Social Work, we could recognize small progress in raising the level of their satisfaction in regard with the data which we had analyzed last year. Their praises are mostly related with certain individuals, which is a clear indicator that globally situation is has not been improved.

• 30% of women stated that most of their criminal charges have never been processed to the Courts;
• 85% of women said that they have experienced the attempt for reconciliation of marital partners as some kind of pressure, that they accepted it unwillingly and due to forced felling that they are the ones who “do not care” for family in case if they do not accept proposal of public official for reconciliation;
• 63% of women stated that even after the “reconciliation”, more precisely after police officer’s “warning” to the violator, they were beaten right after their return home, but they were not denouncing it because they lost faith in institutional help; 
• 83% of women believe that their husbands-violators enjoy preferential treatment in institutions;
• 89.5% of women had complaints on slow and ineffective court procedure, more concretely on lack of awareness of court’s employees for the delicate problem of domestic violence;
• 100% of SOS hotlines’ clients had complaints on too high prices of legal services and services from the attorneys, 87% of them were not able to pay the court costs, attorneys’ fees, etc. Therefore, help obtained from volunteers in SOS hotlines was important for them (all services for clients are free of charge); 
• 25% of women stated that public officials are minimizing problems of eventual violence that they are suffering in their marriages from close and distant relatives with whom they live together. Public officials see this conflicts as “women’s incidents” even if this kind of violence usually have big consequences; 
• Beneficiaries of the Center for Social Work Services stated that the biggest problem is the absence of room for meetings between parents and children in this Center, so they are forced to organize these meetings at inadequate places (street, cafe bar, pastry shop) which their ex-husbands often use for further permanent mistreating; 
• 69% of clients are not satisfied with the way how their children are confided to their ex-husbands when they should see each other. They are stressing that no one is taking care about capability of some fathers who are drunk during this visit-period, and like that, they are driving the children in the car, taking them to café bars, mistreating them (we had a case when one drunk father have forgotten where he left his child). All of this is not effecting on decision of the Center for Social Work to suggest taking away the parental rights for these incapable fathers.

Activists of SOS hotline have recognized following problems:

• Large number of women is turning to us with the request for writing the charges for division of marital goods, proposals for transferring of property and loading the real-estates, which all imply on presence of economical violence. Like this, a woman is expressing the fear that she and her children will lose material goods, since she has been threatened that she will be thrown out on the street, that she and the children will lose property and similar things, which means that she has been an object for exploitation for years; 
• The problem of violence leaves long-term consequences on victim’s psychical life and often psychical violence is accompanied with physical which clearly implies that this violence is a serious problem which always has a raising tendency and for this reason should not be solved in family as a private problem, but should be open to the public so that the state can develop mechanisms for prevention and solving the problem of violence; 
• The inertia of institutions can be noticed, and is related to enforcement of decisions in effect and decisions ready to be carried out which regulate very important issues for marriage and illegitimate marriage, and especially for those related with children (we had a case when a woman obtained the decision of the Center for Social Work with clearly defined obligations for her ex illegitimate partner related with their children, but she is waiting for a justice for a year, because the competent institution literally does not have a strength to realize its decision); 
• Lack of clearly defined legal measure for security, stated as “restraining order” for the violator, basic human right on protection and security is has been broken broken.

Anyhow, the fact is that minimizing the effects of violence against women and children, from the side of public officials, as well as from the public, is still an obstacle on the road of searching the protection for the persons in risk of violence, and is a very fruitful soil for development of various types of institutional violence against women and children victims of domestic violence, out of which the most frequent are as follows: 

• Long-term and exhausting processes for the victim,
• Disregard of the legal regulations and making decisions based on our own convictions, attitudes and prejudices, 
• Preferential treatment, 
• Uncoordinated work of governmental services responsible for solving of those problems (redirecting responsibilities) which brings to longing and inhuman process where the victim wanders from one to another institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of current situation has shown that no matter on certain positive steps forward, system’s institutions are still not aware of domestic violence consequences for the society as a whole, and how important is their role in the part of preventive actions, even if they are the ones who are persistently stating that the biggest number of delinquently, even criminal behavior, is the effect of some type of violence which violators experienced in their own families.

Paradox to all is when public officials see “reconciliation” of marital partners who were the actual actors in a violent situation as their professional success; even if long-term experiences show that domestic violence is characterized with continuity (repetition). Also, permanent return of a wife to her husband-violator, with the advice to be patient and with violator’s promises that he will never do it again, provokes the felling of helplessness in a woman and children and the belief that there is no way out from the violent situation.

Data, which proves that minimizing the effects of domestic violence is a general problem within the process of providing security and protection to victims of violence, are as follows:

• In Security Center Podgorica there is only one inspector in charge for solving of this problem, which, with all his efforts and professionalism, is not enough for necessary serious work; 
• Very often, cases of domestic violence are shifted to the “staff from the sector”, which means that it is shifted to the police officers who are not educated inspectors and who do not know problem of domestic violence; 
• There is no unique data base which will be used for monitoring of this occurrence and according to that, to undertake adequate measures.

Very often, large number of charges in Security Centers ends up as a “warning” to violators, and tolerant relation of judiciary toward violators can also be defined as a result of minimizing the problem of violence in family.

After the recognition of the problem of violence against women and children, then the problems that restrict or prevent officials from the Ministry of Interior to act in adequate way, courts’ problem in determining adequate sanctions, and all privileges that violator has and which allows him to perform long-term unpunished violence, we came to the conclusion that it is necessary to raise some questions and ask the public, and at the same time to offer proposals for more effective solving of stated problems:

Questions:

1. Who is responsible in a case when the violator has carried out his threat, and injures or even kills the victim?
2. Have the competent persons from the Judiciary and Ministry of Interior had a common meeting, have they exchanged their experiences and determined unique criteria for the enforcement of the article 220? 
3. Is the need for “preserving the family” no matter on price, and even for the price of violence within which the victim is faced on the road for seeking the help in institutions, actually the effect of our prejudices or just only an effective excuse for “not interfering”, or said in another way just not performing their professional obligations? 
4. Which are the normative acts that give authority to the police officers for “pronouncing” so many warnings, and when will this authority be given to the courts as in every legal state?

Proposals:

1. The state has to harmonize the relation between the real situation and the needs for normative regulation of control and violence prevention;
2. To harmonize all criteria on the level of the Republic immediately, taking care about adequate enforcement of current laws; 
3. Judiciary needs to take seriously all the threats and blackmails, because there were no cases with a tragic end, without previous serious threats which husband or ex-husband was directing to his wife, or to the members of her family; 
4. Independent court conviction has to be more serious in this situations, better data base about the structure of the problem of domestic violence and its ratio in Montenegrin society; 
5. To introduce measure for security defined as a restraining order for the violator in our criminal law, and in this way to provide respect of basic human right on protection and security; 
6. To create unique data base in the Ministry of Interior, Judiciary, Centers for Social Work, and Health Institutions, with uniform forms and methods for reporting and recording, which will be used for monitoring of this occurrence and according to that, to undertake adequate measures; 
7. Responsible persons in this state should be faced with the fact that for entry in Europe is not enough to follow only the trend of “humanization” of punishments, but to take care about legal satisfaction and victims’ protection; 
8. To raise the level of inter-professional cooperation between institutions and NGOs in order to have a common acting, and more effective solving the problem.

Source: SOS hotline for women and children victims of violence - Podgorica

 Serbian version